EU plan has different targets for different pollutants in different countries – Roger Helmer MEP


This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

5 Responses to EU plan has different targets for different pollutants in different countries – Roger Helmer MEP

  1. ian wragg says:

    How does that work then Roger. Is Poland for example allowed to emit more SO2 and NOX than Britain because they rely on coal fired power stations.
    Will Germany get higher allowances because it does all the manufacturing after shutting down all competition.
    Who actually proposes the levels per country?

    • Ex-expat Colin says:

      Its dead easy Ian..must be, because Mutti Merkel did it, just like that!

    • Roger Helmer MEP says:

      The theory is that the Commission has taken account of the present status of member-states on each pollutant, and has looked for the most “cost-effective” targets. Clearly if one country has done nothing, while another country has made significant efforts, it is easier for the first country to pick the low-hanging fruit, than for the other to make further progress. But I find it outrageous that the unaccountable Commission makes these decisions centrally when it is so clear that they should be democratic decisions made by elected parliaments in member-states. “The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars,
      but in ourselves, that we are underlings.”

  2. Once again, the EU is not obeying its own proclamation of subsidiarity.

  3. Brin Jenkins says:

    The reason for this solution scare is what exactly? Are we diversifying from Global Warming now?

    Within Science folks need to specialise, no one at any level can be cutting edge on all aspects. In discussion Warmists rely on few folk understanding Science, and the methods. Specialists employed in the nu Global Industry are quoted, neat phrases are bandied about impressively, telling us to visit this or that site for further enlightenment?

    When I hear these arguments I look first within my own understanding and logic, this I can argue on and I ask for their own understanding. Their own explanation of understanding is unlikely as they don’t have one, they then find another area and switch telling you this is it! This is a tactic hoping to throw us into confusion.

    Our Climate has gone on its cycles for millions of years without worry, now we are being told change is needed and we must listen to avoid a predicted near future disaster.

    Well guys if this is true you will need to convince people, and threats to criminalise dissent is counter productive. We are owed an understandable explanation of the mechanism without the dishonest shenanigan we see at present.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s